This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Introduction

Fibromyalgia (FM), characterized by wide-spread diffuse pain and sensory abnormalities,
is associated with elevated indices of distress and pain-related catastrophizing compared
to both pain-free samples and those with chronic pain conditions. Catastrophizing
is a pervasive negative mental set, and is a strong predictor of negative pain-related
outcomes such as clinical pain intensity, and physical disability. Situational catastrophizing,
measured in the context of experimentally-induced pain, is strongly related to enhanced
pain sensitivity, a core aspect of the pathophysiology of fibromyalgia. However, little
is known regarding the temporal course of the association between catastrophizing
and pain-related "outcomes". Most studies involve only static assessments of pain
and catastrophizing at a single time point, which provides little insight into the
direction of the observed associations. We sought to investigate the temporal relationships
between catastrophizing and indices of both clinical pain (substudy 1) and experimentally-induced
pain (substudy 2) in a larger randomized controlled longitudinal trial.

Methods

Fifty-seven patients with FM completed catastrophizing, depression, and pain questionnaires
as well as laboratory cold pressor pain testing at baseline, post-intervention and
three month follow-up during a lifestyle physical activity study. Cross-lagged panel
analyses were used to address these temporal relationships.

Results

In substudy 1, analyses revealed that pre-to-post changes in dispositional catastrophizing
ratings prospectively accounted for unique variance in subsequent post-to-follow-up
changes in clinical pain ratings (p = 0.005), while pre-to-post changes in pain ratings
did not account for unique variance in post-to-follow-up changes in catastrophizing
ratings. An identical pattern was observed experimentally in substudy 2, with pre-to-post
changes in situational catastrophizing ratings prospectively accounting for unique
variance in subsequent post-to-follow-up changes in experimental pain ratings (p =
0.014), while pre-to-post changes in pain ratings did not account for unique variance
in post-to-follow-up changes in catastrophizing ratings. Specifically, initial alterations
in catastrophizing were associated with subsequent alterations in clinical and experimentally
induced pain. Controlling for levels of depression did not affect the results.

Conclusions

These findings provide empirical evidence that catastrophizing processes might precede
and contribute to subsequent alterations in the pain experience for FM patients.

Trial Registration

Introduction

Catastrophizing, a set of negative emotional and cognitive processes, is widely recognized
as an important factor in amplifying chronic pain [1]. Dispositional catastrophizing, a trait-like measure, is associated with increased
pain intensity ratings and greater numbers of tender points in patients with fibromyalgia
(FM) [2]. Functional neuroimaging studies have also suggested that catastrophizing predicts
individual differences in pain-related brain activations within multiple networks
related to the processing of pain-related information [3]. Longitudinal research suggests that psychosocial factors such as catastrophizing
are associated with increased risk of persistent pain [1], and related research findings demonstrate a variety of interventions that have been
shown to reduce the severity of FM pain also decrease catastrophizing [4,5]. However, as the vast majority of relevant studies are cross-sectional, the temporal
relationships between changes in pain and changes in catastrophizing have been difficult
to fully elucidate. To date, it remains unclear whether reductions in catastrophizing
influence subsequent pain responses, or whether treatment-associated decreases in
pain drive the observed reductions in catastrophizing. In a multidisciplinary treatment
study in patients with musculoskeletal pain, Burns and colleagues [6] found that early treatment-related changes in catastrophizing and pain helplessness
(a component of catastrophizing) predicted late-treatment outcome changes in pain
severity and functioning, but not vice-versa. To date however, no such analyses have
been conducted in FM patients.

Situational catastrophizing measured during or immediately following laboratory pain
procedures, is also strongly related to experimental pain ratings [7]. Our group has previously shown that early changes in catastrophizing may predict
later changes in experimental pain ratings among healthy controls exposed to a tonically
painful noxious stimulus [8]; however this relationship has not been examined prospectively in a clinical pain
population. Herein, we evaluate the directional inter-relationships between longitudinal
changes in pain and catastrophizing within a sample of FM patients. As in previous
studies, we applied cross-lagged panel analyses [6,8-10], in this case, to data collected during a lifestyle physical activity intervention
study in FM patients. Dispositional and situational catastrophizing, as well as clinical
pain and experimental (cold pressor) pain responses, were measured at multiple points
throughout the study, providing an opportunity to examine the temporal relationship
of catastrophizing and pain over time. The cross-lagged panel analytic approach provides
a technique to systematically characterize temporal associations between constructs
of interest. We examined whether early changes in process (in this case catastrophizing)
predict later changes in an outcome (pain), as well as the reverse-lagged associations
(that is, whether early changes in pain predict subsequent changes in catastrophizing)
and concurrent relationships [6]. Substudy 1 included dispositional catastrophizing and clinical pain, while substudy
2 included situational catastrophizing and experimental pain. See Figure 1 for a visual depiction of the study design.

Methods

Participants

FM patients were recruited for participation through the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center,
affiliated Johns Hopkins Rheumatology clinics, by newspaper advertisements, and clinical
trial recruitment websites, including clinicaltrials.gov. Substudy 1 included a total
sample size of 57 participants for analyses of clinical pain. Eight participants elected
not to complete follow-up cold pressor testing, thus 49 are included in substudy 2,
the experimental pain analyses. Mean age of the sample was 48.1 years (SD 11.5), and
the group was predominantly female (95%) and non-Hispanic white (90%). The mean duration
of FM was 7.4 years (SD 6.6). Those excluded from the experimental analyses were not
significantly different from the larger group in any demographic category. Major inclusion
criteria included age ≥ 18 years and who met American College of Rheumatology diagnostic
criteria for FM [11]. Exclusion criteria included medical conditions that could preclude active participation
(for example, cancer, coronary artery disease); those with the intention of altering
their treatment, and those that were unwilling to make the required time commitment
were excluded from the trial (see [12,13] for additional trial details). All study-related procedures were approved by the
Johns Hopkins Hospital Institutional Review Board. Verbal and written informed consent
was obtained upon arrival, after which participants underwent the assessment procedures
described below.

Study procedures

Participants were randomized to either a lifestyle physical activity (LPA) intervention
group or a fibromyalgia education (FME) control group. LPA included six 60-minute
group sessions over 12 weeks; sessions addressed FM-specific challenges to becoming
more physically active, with a goal of accumulating 30 minutes of self-selected moderate-intensity
physical activity five to seven days each week. The FME group met monthly for three
months and included educational components and social support (see [12,13] for specifics of the interventions). All measures (described below) were collected
at baseline, after the 12-week intervention and again at 3-month follow-up.

Substudy 1

Clinical pain assessment

Pain was assessed using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) where participants rated
their current level of pain, ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable).

Pain Catastrophizing

Participants completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) [14] at each of the three visits prior to undergoing any assessments. The measure consists
of 13 items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time).
Respondents indicate the degree to which they have specified thoughts and feelings
when experiencing pain. The measure assesses three dimensions of catastrophizing:
rumination, magnification, and helplessness. The PCS has been validated in both clinical
and nonclinical samples [15].

Substudy 2

Cold pressor pain assessment

Cold pressor pain was assessed by having participants immerse their nondominant hand
up to the wrist in a 4°C water bath. Standardized instructions informed participants
that they should maintain their hand in the water bath for 30 seconds; however if
the pain became intolerable, participants were told that they could remove their hand
at any time. Subjects were prompted to rate the intensity of the cold pressor pain
using a 0 to 100 VAS. This procedure was conducted twice to ensure consistent readings.
Pain ratings were averaged across the two trials for all subsequent analyses.

Situational Pain Catastrophizing

An adaptation of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale [14] used for a laboratory pain-testing environment was used to assess situation-specific
catastrophizing as in prior studies from our group and others [7,16]. The Situation-Specific Pain Catastrophizing Scale (SPCS), administered immediately
following the cold pressor pain testing, is a six-item questionnaire with responses
ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time). The scale has been described more
fully by Edwards and colleagues [17] and its psychometric properties have been investigated [7]. In the current study, participants completed the catastrophizing questionnaire immediately
following the second cold pressor procedure (described above). Participants were instructed
to reference the cold pain they were experiencing in their hand while completing the
questionnaire at each time point.

Data reduction and analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine any overall effect of group
(LPA vs. FME) on the variables of interest. Clinical pain ratings were used, and mean
cold pressor pain ratings and summed dispositional and situational catastrophizing
were calculated for each of the three time points. Zero-order correlations between
both catastrophizing measures and pain measures at all three time pointes were computed.
Three-factor repeated-measures ANOVA the factors being assessments made before treatment
(Pre), immediately following 12-week treatment (Post), and at follow-up 3-months post-treatment
(FU), were conducted to determine whether changes were observed from Pre assessments
to Post and FU assessment epochs for dispositional and situational catastrophizing
and clinical and cold pressor pain ratings. We computed standardized residualized
change scores to index Pre-to-Post and Post-to-FU changes in each measure. We chose
to use residualized change scores instead of simple change scores because of problems
of dependence between change and Pre values encountered with use of the latter [18]. The use of residualized change scores has been recommended for cross-lagged panel
analyses [9]. Next, we examined zero-order correlations between Pre-to-Post and Post-to-FU changes
in catastrophizing and pain measures. Lastly, a series of hierarchical regression
analyses were conducted to assess whether Pre-to-Post changes in each catastrophizing
measure accounted for unique variance in the appropriate Post-to-FU change in pain
ratings (clinical or cold pressor), or vice-versa, controlling for synchronous correlations
and autocorrelations (that is, potential sources of extraneous variance). While these
analyses were conducted on a convenient sample, our sample sizes were adequate to
detect meaningful contributions of each variable at 80% power [9].

Cross-lagged hierarchical regression analyses

Correlations among standardized residual change scores are presented in Table 3. Two sets of hierarchical regressions were performed to determine whether (substudy
1) Pre-to-Post dispositional and change scores were significantly and uniquely associated
with Post-to-FU changes in clinical pain, and (substudy 2) Pre-to-Post situational
pain catastrophizing were significantly and uniquely associated with cold pressor
pain ratings, or vice versa. In substudy 1, with Post-to-FU change in clinical pain
as the criterion variable, change in clinical pain from Pre-to-Post and change in
dispositional catastrophizing from Post-to-FU session accounted for 3% of the variance
in the initial step of the regression. In the second step, Pre-to-Post change in catastrophizing
accounted for a significant 14% of the variance. These data suggest that early changes
in dispositional catastrophizing account for unique variance in later changes in clinical
pain (Table 4).

With Post-to-FU change in dispositional catastrophizing as the criterion variable,
change in dispositional catastrophizing from Pre-to-Post and change in pain from Post-to-FU
accounted for 14% of the variance in the initial step of the regression. In the second
step, Pre-to-Post change in pain accounted for only 0.1% of the variance in Post-to-FU
change in catastrophizing (Table 4).

In substudy 2, with Post-to-FU change in cold pressor pain as the criterion variable,
change in cold pressor pain from Pre-to-Post and change in situational catastrophizing
from Post-to-FU session accounted for 5% of the variance in the initial step of the
regression. In the second step, Pre-to-Post change in situational catastrophizing
accounted for a significant 11% of the variance. These data suggest that early changes
in situational catastrophizing account for unique variance in later changes in cold
pressor pain (Table 4).

With Post-to-FU change in situational catastrophizing as the criterion variable, change
in situational catastrophizing from Pre-to-Post and change in cold pressor pain from
Post-to-FU accounted for 3% of the variance in the initial step of the regression.
In the second step, Pre-to-Post change in cold pressor pain accounted for only 0.2%
of the variance in Post-to-FU change in situational catastrophizing (Table 5).

Controlling for condition and depression, by entering it into the first block of each
regression did not alter the pattern of results or significance level, thus condition
was removed as a variable of interest.

Discussion

This study investigated whether changes in dispositional and situational pain catastrophizing
prospectively influence subsequent clinical and experimental pain, or vice versa.
These findings add to a growing literature on prospective associations between catastrophizing
and pain. Using a cross-lagged panel approach, the change in dispositional catastrophizing
(about pain in day-to-day-life) from Pre-to-Post assessment was associated with (subsequent)
changes in Post-to-FU clinical pain. The same relationship was observed for situational
catastrophizing (about cold pressor experimental pain). These findings were observed
even when controlling for Post-to-FU changes in catastrophizing and Pre-to-Post changes
in pain (both clinical and experimental). In contrast, changes in clinical and experimental
pain from Pre-to-Post were not associated with later changes in Post-to-FU catastrophizing.
These results provide additional evidence that changes in catastrophizing might precede
changes in pain response. Our group previously demonstrated this association in healthy
participants undergoing laboratory capsaicin-induced pain [8]. This approach has also been employed by Burns and colleagues, [6,19] who similarly found prospective associations of changes in catastrophizing with changes
in pain-related variables in the context of multidisciplinary pain treatment. Their
results indicated that early treatment reductions in pain helplessness (a dimension
of catastrophizing) predicted later treatment decreases in pain and interference,
and early treatment reductions in catastrophizing and pain-related anxiety preceded
later treatment improvements in pain severity, but not vice versa [19]. They also found that early-treatment changes in catastrophizing and pain helplessness
predicted final treatment pain outcomes, even controlling for depression [6].

Conventionally measured catastrophizing is thought to reflect a dispositional trait
that appears to be relatively stable over time in the absence of intervention [20-22]. Measurement of catastrophizing is typically assessed prior to laboratory pain induction
procedures, when subjects complete one or more questionnaires that ask them to reflect
and report on how much they generally catastrophize when in pain. In the current analyses,
dispositional pain catastrophizing was reduced over time (to a similar degree in both
treatment groups), and this reduction appears to have influenced a reduction in clinical
pain reporting. Interestingly, recent reports suggest that dispositional assessment
of catastrophizing may not be as relevant to experimentally induced pain [23]. Situational catastrophizing is assessed during or immediately following experimental
noxious stimulation and refers the participant to the pain experienced during testing.
A growing body of literature has noted the strong association between situational
catastrophizing and pain ratings in healthy participants as well as populations with
chronic pain [24-28], and several reports suggest that dispositional and situational measures are only
moderately correlated [16,23,29]. The current findings suggest that alterations in Pre-to-Post situational catastrophizing,
even in a chronic pain population, influence experimental pain reporting from Post-to-FU
visits.

A growing collection of studies have shown that catastrophizing is linked to a number
of pain-related symptoms in FM patients, including pain severity, disability and tender
point counts [1]. Catastrophizing appears to be one of the key psychosocial factors in shaping pain
and pain-related outcomes. For example, studies in patients with spinal pain have
indicated that catastrophizing is the single most important pre-treatment risk factor
that predicts poor outcomes of pain-relieving interventions [30,31]. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that catastrophizing, which is correlated with
more general measures of distress and negative effect, may be the principal psychosocial
driver of persistent pain symptoms. In a sample of over 200 women undergoing hysterectomy,
pre-surgical anxiety level was initially a highly significant predictor of pain intensity
at 48 hours after surgery, but after the inclusion of catastrophizing in the model,
the influence of anxiety was no longer significant while catastrophizing remained
in the multivariate model, fully mediating the effects of anxiety (P < 0.001) [32].

Several studies have found no association between dispositional and situational catastrophizing
[7,16]. Unlike previous studies, our findings suggest that traditionally measured (dispositional)
catastrophizing was associated with situational catastrophizing and both clinical
and experimental pain at different time points. This finding is not surprising, given
the relationship between catastrophizing and pain in populations with FM and those
with other functional pain syndromes [1]. While prior psychometric studies have provided evidence for the reliability of catastrophizing
measures, we were encouraged to observe fairly strong correlations over time for dispositional
and situational measures, suggesting the relative stability of individual differences
on these measures. Furthermore, it is interesting to speculate that a common influence
of catastrophizing on both clinical and experimental pain responses might underlie
the increasingly-documented association between individual differences in pain sensitivity
and reported clinical pain. For example, the well-documented relationship between
quantitative sensory testing (QST) responses and post-operative pain [33], or other indices of clinical pain severity [34] could be partially mediated by catastrophizing.

Recent studies have suggested that the pain-reducing effects of a variety of analgesic
treatments, including non-psychological interventions, are due partially to their
effects on cognitive-emotional processes such as catastrophizing. For example, exercise-
and activity-based physical therapy interventions are effective in reducing chronic
low back pain, and their analgesic effects are substantially mediated by the decreases
they produce in catastrophizing [35,36]. The present results add to this body of findings, suggesting that initial alterations
in catastrophizing result in changes in patient's pain experience.

In terms of mechanisms by which early changes in catastrophizing shape later changes
in pain, some prior reports highlight compliance and willingness to engage in physical
activity. Helplessness, a key component of catastrophizing, correlates with less effective
compliance with treatment recommendations [37,38], and prospective studies in patients with low back pain have revealed that those
with high levels of negative effect and catastrophizing are most likely to engage
in extended periods of bed rest, least likely to exercise, and most likely to become
physically de-conditioned over time [39,40]. It is possible, therefore, that in the context of an LPA treatment study such as
this one, early reductions in catastrophizing are related to better compliance with
physical activity-promoting interventions, or perhaps, simply the willingness to participate
in a clinical trial involving physical activity, resulting in later reductions in
clinical pain. Future studies may wish to examine this relationship more closely.

It is interesting to speculate that treatments that specifically reduce catastrophizing
might augment interventions such as LPA. Several studies indicate that cognitive behavioral
therapy (CBT) and related interventions might reduce catastrophizing, with positive
effects on later pain and functional outcomes. For example, Riddle and colleagues
studied total knee replacement patients, selectively recruiting a highly distressed,
high-catastrophizing group [41]. Following surgery, patients in the pain-coping treatment condition, relative to
usual care, reported greater reductions in catastrophizing and lower pain and disability
at 2-month follow-up. It is possible, though not clear in this particular report,
that lowering catastrophizing resulted in enhanced patient engagement in physical
therapy/training (PT) and exercise, leading to lower levels of pain and improved function
in the medium-term postoperative period. A 2010 meta-analysis found that psychological
treatments for fibromyalgia, and CBT in particular, showed the greatest effects when
compared to drug and other pain treatments [5]. In a recent randomized controlled CBT trial specifically focused on reducing catastrophizing,
Alda and colleagues [42] found significant reductions in global pain catastrophizing, increases in pain acceptance,
global function and quality of life compared with pharmacological treatment and usual
care. These findings highlight the potential salutary effects of reducing catastrophizing
in fibromyalgia patients.

Several limitations should be considered in the context of this work. First, this
constitutes a relatively small sample of patients, given that all included here had
to complete all time points. Second, these data are pooled from two treatment groups
(lifestyle physical activity and educational control) from one larger randomized controlled
trial. While no differences were observed between groups at the final treatment visit,
we are unable to determine the influences of treatment over the course of the study.
Thus, it is unclear how treatment interacted with (reduced) catastrophizing and pain
between and within groups. Dispositional catastrophizing was reduced over time, while
situational catastrophizing remained relatively constant. However, fluctuations in
situational catastrophizing significantly predicted alterations in cold pressor pain
responses over time, despite this relative stability. This may be explained by variation
in individual catastrophizing responses driving the influence over pain reporting
[9,43]. In addition, the current analyses are unable to characterize whether catastrophizing
had any influence over global functioning or if reductions in catastrophizing may
improve functioning through its effects on pain. Assessment of these factors would
be a valuable addition to the literature, as global functioning is of extreme importance
in this population [5].

Conclusions

These data are novel as few longitudinal studies have examined changes in catastrophizing
and pain in FM patients. In addition, this study extends our previous work [7,8] and the work of others [6,16,19] in several ways. We previously found that early changes in catastrophizing predicted
later changes in pain in a healthy sample undergoing capsaicin testing [8]. The current findings suggest that in FM patients, change in clinical pain catastrophizing
from Pre-to-Post treatment was associated with subsequent changes in Post-to-FU clinical
pain. The same relationship was observed for experimental pain catastrophizing on
cold pressor experimental pain, replicating our previous experimental pain findings
in a chronic pain population. Changes in clinical and experimental pain from Pre-to-Post
treatment were not associated with later changes in Post-to-FU catastrophizing. These
results provide additional evidence that changes in catastrophizing might precede
and stimulate changes in pain response.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

LC, LM, SB, and MS contributed to the collection, inputting and scoring/interpretation
of data. KF and RE designed the study and participated in the oversight of the study.
VM and RE contributed to the analyses, interpretation and writing. CC wrote the initial
draft of the manuscript and conducted the final analyses. All authors contributed
to the finalization and critical assessment of the manuscript and have given final
approval of this version.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support of grants K23 NS070933 (CMC), AR053168 (KF), The Arthritis
Foundation and American College of Rheumatology (RRE), and the Johns Hopkins Bayview
Clinical Research Unit for assistance with data collection.